Judicial intervention in tender matters is limited to cases of arbitrary or mala fide conduct by the authority; adherence to timelines is essential.

JUDGMENT :

Arif S. Doctor, J. - The Petitioner has in the captioned Writ Petition sought the following reliefs:-

(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents and their officers and agents to accept the submission of bid of the Petitioner for the E-Auction of the leasehold rights in respect of the said Leasehold Land to be held on 12th April 2024.

(b) In the alternative, that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents to extend the date of submission of bids for the E- Auction of the Lease Rights over the said Lands to be held on 12th April 2024;

(c) In the alternative, that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the Respondents to extend the date of the E-Auction of the Lease Rights over the said Lands to be held on 12th April 2024.

2. Respondent No. 1 had on 12th March, 2024 issued a Public Notice through Respondent No. 2 on its website inviting proposals for e-auction for grant of lease of 7.14 hectares of land bearing Final Plot No. 19 and Final Plot No. 20 of TPS-1 admeasuring about 71,400 square meters situated at Bhamburda, (Shivajinagar) old Bombay - Pune Road, Pune City, for a period of eighty years. A perusal of the Request for Proposal (RFP) inter alia reveals that the reserve price for said plot was Rs. 397.50 crores, and that prospective bidders were required to submit (a) an earnest money deposit of Rs. 20 crores (b) a performance bank guarantee of Rs. 20 crores and an RFP fee of Rs. 1 lakh. The RFP further sets out the following "Important Dates" viz.

3. Dr. Sathe Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners essentially made two-fold submissions in support of the reliefs prayed for. His first submission was that the Respondents had not given adequate publicity to the e-auction and that the same was published only on the website of Respondent No. 2. He submitted that resultantly the Petitioner did not have adequate time to make the requisite submissions before 2nd April, 2024 i.e. the last date as per the RFP. It was thus that Dr. Sathe submitted that the time to submit the bids be extended and/or that the Petitioner's bid be accepted since the same was being submitted before the date of the e-auction which was on 12th April, 2024. Dr. Sathe then stated if the Petitioner was permitted to submit its bid the same would not prejudice any party but infact encourage competition since the Petitioners bid was well over the reserve price of Rs. 397.50 crores.

4. The second submission of Dr. Sathe was that even though the date for the e-auction was 12th April 2024, the result of the e-auction would not be declared on that date in view of the code of conduct imposed by Election Commission of India which was in force for the ensuing elections. Basis this he submitted that there was no reason as to why the Respondents could not permit the Petitioner to participate in the said e- auction. He submitted that the Petitioner had infact made a representation to the Respondents, however the same had not been responded to. He submitted that th